The Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999: an exercise in futility?

The Need for an Effective Process to Resolve Conflicts Over Medical Futility: A Case Study and Analysis

The issue of medical futility requires a well-defined process in which both sides of the dispute can be heard and a resolution reached in a fair and ethical manner. Procedural approaches to medical futility cases provide all parties involved with a process-driven framework for resolving these disputes. Medical paternalism or the belief in the absolute rightness of the medical model will not serve to resolve these disputes. Although medical futility is first determined by medicine, in order for the determination to meet legal criteria, it must be subject to review. The hope is that through a review process that meets legal criteria, the issue can be resolved without the need for court proceedings. If resolution cannot be obtained through this process, surrogates still have the right to seek court intervention. This issue is of relevance and importance in critical care nursing because of the role and position of critical care nurses, who have direct contact with patients and patients' families, the potential for moral distress in cases of possibly futile treatment, and the expanding roles of nurses, including critical care nurses and advanced practice nurses, in management and policy development.

Futility and the care of surgical patients: ethical dilemmas

Futility has been a contentious topic in medicine for several decades. Surgery in critical or end-of-life situations often raises difficult questions about futility. In this article, we discuss the definition of futility, methods for resolving futility disputes, and some ways to reframe the futility debate to a more fruitful discussion about the goals of care, better communication between surgeon and patient/surrogate, and palliative surgical care. Many definitions of futile therapy have been discussed. The most controversial of these is "qualitative futility" which describes a situation in which the treatment provided is likely to result in an unacceptable quality of life. This is an area of continued controversy because it has been impossible to identify universally held beliefs about acceptable quality of life. Many authors have described methods for resolving futility disputes, including community standards and legalistic multi-step due process protocols. Others, however, have abandoned the concept of futility altogether as an unhelpful term. Reframing the issue of futility as one of inadequate physician-patient communication, these authors have advocated for methods of improving communication and strengthening the patient-physician relationship. Finally, we discuss the utilization of consultants who may be of use in resolving futility disputes: ethics committees, palliative care specialists, pastoral care teams, and dedicated patient advocates. Involving these specialists in a futility conflict can help improve communication and provide invaluable assistance in arriving at the appropriate treatment decision.

Ten common questions (and their answers) on medical futility

The term medical futility is frequently used when discussing complex clinical scenarios and throughout the medical, legal, and ethics literature. However, we propose that health care professionals and others often use this term inaccurately and imprecisely, without fully appreciating the powerful, often visceral, response that the term can evoke. This article introduces and answers 10 common questions regarding medical futility in an effort to define, clarify, and explore the implications of the term. We discuss multiple domains related to futility, including the biological, ethical, legal, societal, and financial considerations that have a bearing on definitions and actions. Finally, we encourage empathetic communication among clinicians, patients, and families and emphasize how dialogue that seeks an understanding of multiple points of view is critically important in preventing or attenuating conflict among the involved parties.